Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 73 (8864 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 09-23-2018 7:02 AM
272 online now:
Faith, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), PaulK, Percy (Admin) (4 members, 268 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: rldawnca
Post Volume:
Total: 838,793 Year: 13,616/29,783 Month: 1,062/1,576 Week: 3/271 Day: 3/39 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
4Next
Author Topic:   Nonsensical Atheists? Agobot?
Agobot
Member (Idle past 3426 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 31 of 48 (497569)
02-04-2009 5:43 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Percy
02-04-2009 2:11 PM


Percy writes:

The text you quote from Modulous's is a pretty accurate recap of what you said in the text you quoted from yourself.

The point Capt Stormfield was making was that a bridge is no less an emergent manifestation of atoms than life.

You have no idea how wrong you are here. In fact, this is by far the dumbest thing I've seen posted here. IMO this beats the 6000 year old Earth, the talking serpent and is on par with the idea of a flat Earth.

Percy writes:

All atoms of a given isotope always have precisely the same properties, and it doesn't matter whether they're in a bridge or a living cell.

So you don't have blood, enzymes, DNA, hormones, etc. etc. all made of atoms? Are your internals made of stationary parts? Do you take food and drinks? I don't even want to get involved any further in this thing.

Here is the smallest bacteria - Mycoplasma. It is constructed of roughly 10 billion atoms. It's alive. Change the positions of 10% of the atoms in the molecules, and it will be dead. While in a specific configuration, those 10 bln. atoms "come alive" and have new , radically new, unseen properties.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mycoplasma

Percy writes:

Reading the rest of your message, I'm wondering if you believe that only life can display emergent properties. If so then you're saying a lot of things that you'll probably regret later, so you might want to read up on emergence before digging your hole any deeper.

There is strong and weak emergence, but we were obviously discussing life, which is strong emergence and cannot be explained. Well, i see that some of you are 'aware' of ways to explain life's emergence from atoms. It's the same as in bridges. :)

Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Percy, posted 02-04-2009 2:11 PM Percy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by PaulK, posted 02-05-2009 1:34 AM Agobot has not yet responded

    
Agobot
Member (Idle past 3426 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 32 of 48 (497571)
02-04-2009 5:49 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by kuresu
02-04-2009 5:35 PM


kuresu writes:

You know, I really have to wonder if there's some kind of language barrier here.

Nice try. Do you believe your atoms are behaving in the same manner as the atoms in a bridge? Does the bridge have DNA? Is there a brain in the bridge that can send individual atoms to a certain location that is in need of such an atom(in the bridge)?

Is everyone gone mad already?

Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by kuresu, posted 02-04-2009 5:35 PM kuresu has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by kuresu, posted 02-04-2009 6:25 PM Agobot has responded

    
Modulous
Member (Idle past 0 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 33 of 48 (497572)
02-04-2009 5:52 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Agobot
02-04-2009 5:22 PM


I never said because it(the bridge) was alive that it didn't have emergent properties. I never implied the word because, that's a Lie what you are putting into my mouth.

I did not state that you did say 'because'. I said that you implied it. It was implied because you added "it's not alive and it's most definitely not conscious" as if to qualify your statement "A bridge does not have emergent properties". That implies that the reason why a bridge does not have emergent properties should be seen as evident from the facts of its nonlivingness.

This is implicitly, not explicitly stated. If you didn't mean to say that, then that is fine. If you did mean to say it, it is nonsense.

I appreciate English isn't your first language, so rather than cast aspersions as to your intelligence as you were so quick to make comments about my integrity I will simply comment that you should take your time and try to understand what others are saying before flying off the handle.

BTW, what are these magical emergent properties of the bridge that you are talking about??

I could, for instance, engage the same play you just did. I could say that I never used the word magical - and I could further comment that that is a "Lie what you are putting into my mouth". It wouldn't be constructive of me to do that though, would it?

Did you read any of the links I provided that explain what an emergent property actually is? With that information, can you not figure it out for yourself? Perhaps you should propose a new topic where we can all debate what is and what is not an emergent property. It is actually a rather interesting topic, and I'd be happy to take part.

It isn't the topic here.

If this was supposed to have been a rhetorical question, it's got to be the dumbest 'rhetorical' question on Earth. Ha ha ha, here is another rhetorical question:

Is the Earth not flat? (asked by a flat earth society member)

The question I asked you, if you had forgotten, was is this rhetorical question 'the best example of atheist nonsense you can come up with?'. Your playground-level of attempted insult is not an answer to my question. Instead of being puerile, perhaps you'd like to answer?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Agobot, posted 02-04-2009 5:22 PM Agobot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Agobot, posted 02-04-2009 6:00 PM Modulous has responded
 Message 38 by Percy, posted 02-04-2009 7:27 PM Modulous has not yet responded

  
Agobot
Member (Idle past 3426 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 34 of 48 (497573)
02-04-2009 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Modulous
02-04-2009 5:52 PM


Modulous writes:

The question I asked you, if you had forgotten, was is this rhetorical question 'the best example of atheist nonsense you can come up with?'. Your playground-level of attempted insult is not an answer to my question. Instead of being puerile, perhaps you'd like to answer?

Out of the last 3 or 4 days, yes, it's the best example and atheists are still fighting to upkeep this nonsense.

I can dig more, but this is not a good tactic to sweep some nonsense under the rug, as if it didn't exist, or as if it wasn't that much of a nonsense. If i had posted more quotes with stupidity from the past, it would only serve to distract me from the debate by going back and forth between a dozen topics, its details, its wording, its dictionary definitions, semantics, etc. all into oblivion. I've been a member of this camp long enough to know well this "confuse your opponent" tactic.

Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Modulous, posted 02-04-2009 5:52 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Modulous, posted 02-04-2009 6:43 PM Agobot has not yet responded
 Message 37 by Granny Magda, posted 02-04-2009 7:12 PM Agobot has responded

    
kuresu
Member (Idle past 409 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 35 of 48 (497579)
02-04-2009 6:25 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Agobot
02-04-2009 5:49 PM


Do you believe your atoms are behaving in the same manner as the atoms in a bridge?

I don't believe it. It's what's supported by the evidence. The atoms in the bridge and my body all behave according to the very same rules. The atoms in my body and in the bridge all work according to the same atomic theory of matter at the macro scale, and whatever it is that applies at the micro scale.

Imagine that life is a water molecule. A bridge is a carbon dioxide molecule. They both operate according to the same principles, and yet are very different from each other. I don't see what's so nonsensical about that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Agobot, posted 02-04-2009 5:49 PM Agobot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Agobot, posted 02-05-2009 11:26 AM kuresu has not yet responded

    
Modulous
Member (Idle past 0 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 36 of 48 (497583)
02-04-2009 6:43 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Agobot
02-04-2009 6:00 PM


Out of the last 3 or 4 days, yes, it's the best example and atheists are still fighting to upkeep this nonsense.

Thank you for answering the question. Even if I squint and try to interpret his words in the least charitable way, I don't think 'nonsense' is really the word I would use and I don't think it is comparable to being a factor of 1 million out on the age of the earth.

Are you suggesting that as an atheist I know what he said was nonsense, but am deliberately trying to cover for him because he may or may not be an atheist? (I have no idea what metaphysics he subscribes to incidentally, have you seen him declare somewhere?).

I read the post and made sense of it. Either I am lying to you, or the post wasn't nonsense, or I am deluding myself into thinking it makes sense (like the opposite of God-goggles, I presume). It seemed to me that Capt Stormfield was simply expressing that there is nothing 'magic' happening in life, from an atomic point of view. It was essentially an argument against vitalism, vis its relationship to emergence.

quote:
"there is a very important difference between the vitalists and the emergentists: the vitalist's creative forces were relevant only in organic substances, not in inorganic matter. Emergence hence is creation of new properties regardless of the substance involved." "The assumption of an extra-physical vitalis (vital force, entelechy, élan vital, etc.), as formulated in most forms (old or new) of vitalism, is usually without any genuine explanatory power. It has served altogether too often as an intellectual tranquilizer or verbal sedative—stifling scientific inquiry rather than encouraging it to proceed in new directions."

Quoted by wiki, source here.

You may or may not agree with the argument, as you will, and you might think the argument irrelevant to the point you were trying to raise, but if I blanket labelled everything I disagreed with or thought irrelevant as 'nonsense', I'd be calling a heck of a lot of things nonsense.

If the Admins suspended on this basis, there would be a very small membership here, or at any forum, and the membership would consist purely of sycophants.

I appreciate I am not going to convince you that it isn't nonsense, I just thought I would at least explain to you why I didn't think it was.

I can dig more, but this is not a good tactic to sweep some nonsense under the rug, as if it didn't exist, or as if it wasn't that much of a nonsense. If i had posted more quotes with stupidity from the past, it would only serve to distract me from the debate by going back and forth between a dozen topics, its details, its wording, its dictionary definitions, semantics, etc. all into oblivion.

I have no desire to do any of that. That is why I refused to get into an in depth discussion with you, on this thread, about what an emergent property actually was. I simply want to see what kinds of things you think are examples of atheist nonsense as per the OP.

If you can dig up some more, I'd be keen to hear them. There will be no sweeping under the rug - your opinion is imprinted on this thread time and again. It would be a shame to spend 300 posts arguing over this one single incident - it certainly wouldn't show any trend of atheists treating one kind of nonsense differently. For all we know - it might evidence that atheists are more charitable to new posters than to older ones.

Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Agobot, posted 02-04-2009 6:00 PM Agobot has not yet responded

  
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 84 days)
Posts: 2372
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 37 of 48 (497587)
02-04-2009 7:12 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Agobot
02-04-2009 6:00 PM


Hi Agobot,

quote:
Out of the last 3 or 4 days, yes, it's the best example and atheists are still fighting to upkeep this nonsense.

1) As has been made abundantly clear, Percy is not an atheist. The hint is the "I'm Not an Atheist!" thread that he started the other day, along with his having said very clearly that he is a deist. So it's not only atheists who disagree with you here.

2) It's not nonsense, you just haven't understood the point Capt Stormfield was making. An atom is still an atom, whether it is part of a bridge or part of a person. It obeys exactly the same laws, yet the bridge and the person are very different.

3) Clearly, whether it's nonsense or not, most people in this discussion seem to think that Capt Stormfield's point was valid. Where is the double standard here? I agree with the point Capt S made, so I don't criticise it. I disagree with the point "Creationist #94" makes, so I do criticise it. If I disagree with Capt S, I will criticise him. If I find myself agreeing with "Creationist #94", I will support him on that point. Are you suggesting that people should criticise points that they agree with for the sake of balance?

4)It is, in fact, quite common for atheists to disagree with each other on this board. Only the other day, Bluegenes was kind enough to correct me on the number of non-religious people in the US and he was quite right, both in point of fact and in calling me on my mistake. I disagree with bluescat48's opinion on "rap". I don't see any my-gang-mentality here and I don't see a problem.

quote:
I can dig more, but this is not a good tactic to sweep some nonsense under the rug, as if it didn't exist, or as if it wasn't that much of a nonsense. If i had posted more quotes with stupidity from the past, it would only serve to distract me from the debate by going back and forth between a dozen topics, its details, its wording, its dictionary definitions, semantics, etc. all into oblivion.

You mean you would have to work to actually prove your point? Horror!

I think the point Modulous is making here is that he is unimpressed with the scale of "nonsense" that you have provided as your example. I'm certainly pretty unimpressed; it hardly ranks up there with a triceratops wearing a saddle or other such creationist twaddle. (I chose an example from outside EvC here, so as to avoid causing unnecessary offence.)

quote:
I've been a member of this camp long enough to know well this "confuse your opponent" tactic.

It does not seem as though any such tactic is needed.

Mutate and Survive


"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade
This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Agobot, posted 02-04-2009 6:00 PM Agobot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Agobot, posted 02-05-2009 11:51 AM Granny Magda has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 17657
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 38 of 48 (497590)
02-04-2009 7:27 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Modulous
02-04-2009 5:52 PM


Modulous responding to Agobot writes:

I appreciate English isn't your first language...

I didn't know that, that explains a lot. I hope some progress can be made helping Agobot understand what is actually being said, but I'm not sure this is how I want to spend my time.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Modulous, posted 02-04-2009 5:52 PM Modulous has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14346
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 39 of 48 (497609)
02-05-2009 1:34 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Agobot
02-04-2009 5:43 PM


A worse example of nonsense...
quote:

Percy writes:

All atoms of a given isotope always have precisely the same properties, and it doesn't matter whether they're in a bridge or a living cell.

So you don't have blood, enzymes, DNA, hormones, etc. etc. all made of atoms? Are your internals made of stationary parts? Do you take food and drinks? I don't even want to get involved any further in this thing.


Your comment has nothing to do with the point that Percy was making - which is basic chemistry. It's far worse than the examples you provided. And you haven't been suspended and nobody has demanded it.

Seriously the real problem is your reading comprehension. And your bias against atheists. - as demonstrated both in the nature of your misinterpretations and in your demands for sanctions.

Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Agobot, posted 02-04-2009 5:43 PM Agobot has not yet responded

    
Agobot
Member (Idle past 3426 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 40 of 48 (497653)
02-05-2009 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by kuresu
02-04-2009 6:25 PM


kuresu writes:

I don't believe it. It's what's supported by the evidence. The atoms in the bridge and my body all behave according to the very same rules. The atoms in my body and in the bridge all work according to the same atomic theory of matter at the macro scale, and whatever it is that applies at the micro scale.

Imagine that life is a water molecule. A bridge is a carbon dioxide molecule. They both operate according to the same principles, and yet are very different from each other. I don't see what's so nonsensical about that.

Imagine that life is a water molecule? How about imagine that the Moon is cheese or that Obama is a mouse. We have 'proof' that Obama eats moons.

kuresu writes:

The atoms in the bridge and my body all behave according to the very same rules.

No they don't. Not in any way remotely similar to the bridge. For starters, here is how the atoms in the molecules of your body are communicating:

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/pain/PN00017

This is how the sensation of touch is transferred between atoms, through electrical signaling. This is offtopic but we are much closer to being an electromagnetic phenomenon, than a body of solid matter, despite the illusion created by your brain.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by kuresu, posted 02-04-2009 6:25 PM kuresu has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by bluescat48, posted 02-05-2009 11:38 AM Agobot has not yet responded
 Message 42 by Rahvin, posted 02-05-2009 11:39 AM Agobot has not yet responded

    
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 2086 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 41 of 48 (497655)
02-05-2009 11:38 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Agobot
02-05-2009 11:26 AM


This is how the sensation of touch is transferred between atoms, through electrical signaling. This is offtopic but we are much closer to being an electromagnetic phenomenon, than a body of solid matter, despite the illusion created by your brain.

All chemical reactions are electrical in nature. Bridges are painted to prevent the reaction of 4Fe + 3O2 (HOH)---> 2Fe2O3


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Agobot, posted 02-05-2009 11:26 AM Agobot has not yet responded

    
Rahvin
Member (Idle past 1083 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 42 of 48 (497656)
02-05-2009 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Agobot
02-05-2009 11:26 AM


No they don't. Not in any way remotely similar to the bridge. For starters, here is how the atoms in the molecules of your body are communicating:

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/pain/PN00017

...

Cells are communicating, Agobot. Not molecules. The molecules are used to communicate.

A water molecule in the human body is not different in any way from a water molecule in the ocean. It's still 2 Hydrogen atoms and 1 Oxygen atom. The bond holding the molecule together is identical. Their behavior is identical. There is no difference.

An iron atom in your body is no different from an iron atom in a bridge in the same way. There is nothing intrinsically different between then two.

This is how the sensation of touch is transferred between atoms, through electrical signaling. This is offtopic but we are much closer to being an electromagnetic phenomenon, than a body of solid matter, despite the illusion created by your brain.

First you say molecules are communicating, and now you say atoms are communicating, while your source says that cells and organs are communicating.

And then you start your "electromagnetic phenomenon" and illusion gibberish.

Once again Agobot, you're the only one speaking nonsense in this thread. You have absolutely no diea what you're talking about.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Agobot, posted 02-05-2009 11:26 AM Agobot has not yet responded

  
Agobot
Member (Idle past 3426 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 43 of 48 (497659)
02-05-2009 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Granny Magda
02-04-2009 7:12 PM


Granny Magda writes:

2) It's not nonsense, you just haven't understood the point Capt Stormfield was making. An atom is still an atom, whether it is part of a bridge or part of a person. It obeys exactly the same laws, yet the bridge and the person are very different.

No, this isn't true. It's quite obvious that you'd be dead if the atoms in your body didn't behave in a radically new way, supposedly because of their configuration. Life at the molecular and atomic level is not simple, it's not even complex, it's mind-bogglingly complex.

I posit that there is a difference between a dead and a living human being. The difference is visible at the atomic level, easily. I have no idea why certain individuals omit to consider that your body is mostly liqiud, and most of the communication between the atoms of the molecules are talking place through these liquids(which are excited atoms whose outer electrons at times have the ability to 'fly off'), and through electrical signaling, which is instantaneous. Of course our atomic structure and it's mind-boggling abilities is in absolutely no way similar to that of any bridge.

Granny Magda writes:

I think the point Modulous is making here is that he is unimpressed with the scale of "nonsense" that you have provided as your example. I'm certainly pretty unimpressed; it hardly ranks up there with a triceratops wearing a saddle or other such creationist twaddle. (I chose an example from outside EvC here, so as to avoid causing unnecessary offence.)

But the nonsense is ongoing and protracting. It wasn't my desire to raise hell, i was dragged into it and quite frankly i am wasting my time(i don't stand to gain anything from threads like this one). The only thing i hoped to gain was that maybe someone would think out of the box and maybe take a interesting guess about the nature of those atoms' 'properties' in living organisms.

This is again offtopic, but some scientists have gone as far as to claim that atoms are conscious. While i don't claim this, i see no way to disprove this either.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Granny Magda, posted 02-04-2009 7:12 PM Granny Magda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Rahvin, posted 02-05-2009 12:15 PM Agobot has not yet responded
 Message 45 by Granny Magda, posted 02-05-2009 12:34 PM Agobot has not yet responded
 Message 48 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 02-07-2009 10:05 AM Agobot has not yet responded

    
Rahvin
Member (Idle past 1083 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 44 of 48 (497663)
02-05-2009 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Agobot
02-05-2009 11:51 AM


This is again offtopic, but some scientists have gone as far as to claim that atoms are conscious. While i don't claim this, i see no way to disprove this either.

Would it be fair to say that, at this point, this thread has jumped the shark?

It's somewhat amusing to see how much nonsense Agobot can spew in a thread whose topic concerns Agobot accusing others of using nonsense arguments, but really, my irony meter is close to the breaking point.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Agobot, posted 02-05-2009 11:51 AM Agobot has not yet responded

  
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 84 days)
Posts: 2372
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 45 of 48 (497668)
02-05-2009 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Agobot
02-05-2009 11:51 AM


Still missing that point I see,

quote:
It's quite obvious that you'd be dead if the atoms in your body didn't behave in a radically new way, supposedly because of their configuration.

Note the bolded portion. The atoms may be configured differently, but they are still atoms and obey the same atomic laws as the atoms in a bridge. When an organism dies, it's atoms do not undergo any change within or of themselves, they merely take on a different configuration. They are still atoms. A hydrogen atom in a person is simply a hydrogen atom. The same is true for a bridge, even if the molecules of which it is a part are arranged in different ways and are undergoing different processes.

Consider an analogy; a screw is still a screw, whether it is part of a bicycle or a bridge.

Have you even considered that the reason why so many people are disagreeing with you might not be because they are a bunch of mean spirited atheists? Have considered that it might be more to do with you simply being wrong?

quote:
I posit that there is a difference between a dead and a living human being. The difference is visible at the atomic level, easily.

Good. Show me the difference in, say, a hydrogen atom from a living person and a hydrogen atom from a corpse. Just the atom mind you, not the structure of which it is a part.

quote:
Life at the molecular and atomic level is not simple, it's not even complex, it's mind-bogglingly complex.

There is no life at the atomic level. Atoms are not alive nor do they die. Ironically, you are talking nonsense.

quote:
I have no idea why certain individuals omit to consider that your body is mostly liqiud, and most of the communication between the atoms of the molecules are talking place through these liquids(which are excited atoms whose outer electrons at times have the ability to 'fly off'), and through electrical signaling, which is instantaneous. Of course our atomic structure and it's mind-boggling abilities is in absolutely no way similar to that of any bridge.

Utter crap. The atoms are still atoms and they obey the same laws in both; unless you would like to propose a "Bridge Theory of Matter" and a separate "Person Theory of Matter".

quote:
But the nonsense is ongoing and protracting.

So what? I can't help but feel that at the heart of this lies a protracted whine about moderation procedures. Some people, in your opinion, talk nonsense. What do you want? A muffin basket? Do you want people suspended for disagreeing with you? What is your point? You should expect to find people talking nonsense. This is a debate board. people disagree with each other. A lot. That is the whole point. If everyone agreed with each other, it would be fucking boring.

If you think think someone is talking nonsense, take them up on it and debate it. If not don't. Simple.

quote:
This is again offtopic, but...

But nothing. You really need to lose your habit of dragging every thread in which you participate into irrelevant theoretical physics that you barely understand.

Mutate and Survive


"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade
This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Agobot, posted 02-05-2009 11:51 AM Agobot has not yet responded

    
Prev12
3
4Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018